Watch it, PLANS!
Federal trials about schools,
religion, and the U.S. Constitution that PLANS ought to be watching.
What can and what cannot be legally taught in public schools
without violating the law etc. Kathy's complaint. Censorship
and banned books in the U.S. Censorship in Norway and Jens Bjørneboe's
obscenity trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:23:42 -0500
There's a federal trial ongoing now in my
county, dealing with a nearby school district which is being
charged as illegally promoting religion. I suspect that when
the decision comes down, it may have some precedential value
for the PLANS lawsuit, though I'm sure it will be distinguishable
in a number of ways. Here's this morning's report on the trial.
I'm sure you will all find it intriguing:
---------------------------------------------
Teachers deny their lessons were religious
By LANNING TALIAFERRO
COPYRIGHT 1999 The Journal News. All rights reserved.
Publication date: 2/25/1999
WHITE PLAINS -- A teacher, a psychic and a
Sikh insisted in federal court yesterday that they did not promote
religion in Bedford public schools.
Teacher Maria Pappace testified she started
a seven-week study of Mexico four years ago by reading a legend
about the Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl, with her Pound Ridge fifth-graders.
But, she said, the class did not discuss the ancient religion.
"The goal was to point out that a legend
is not factual," she said, testifying for the defense.
Her view of what went on in her classroom
differed with that of three Roman Catholic families who accuse
district schools of illegally promoting non-Christian religions
and the occult. The Altmans, DiNozzis and DiBaris want U.S. District
Judge Charles Brieant to make the district stop.
Pappace dismissed as "ridiculous"
their claims that a quetzal displayed in a hall was an image
of the devil. The bird was displayed with a pinata, a topographical
map of Mexico and a pair of maracas, all projects by students,
she said.
Neither the bird nor the legend offended her
Roman Catholic beliefs, Pappace told the court.
The plaintiffs' attorney, James Bendell, called
yoga instructor Heia Akal Singh Khalsa to describe lessons he
led last year at Fox Lane High School.
Clad in a white cotton turban, robe and vest
and white Reeboks, Khalsa testified that he only led exercises
and did not discuss his work as a numerologist and spiritual
guide.
Pressed by Bendell about the origin of yoga
as a Hindu philosophy, Khalsa explained he was a Sikh minister
and that secular organizations such as fitness centers offer
yoga classes for fitness and relaxation.
The psychic also called by Bendell testified
that she, too, did not discuss spiritual aspects of her work
during a 1996 visit to Pound Ridge school.
Nancy Weber said her work was designed to
enhance students' creativity, learning and memory. Conceding
she could not recall exactly what she did at the school, Weber
said she probably had children close one eye and draw with their
nondominant hands to exercise their brains in a new way.
The plaintiffs say her activities were an
inappropriate psychological experiment.
Weber's work as a registered nurse, psychic
detective, spiritual healer, telepath and minister in the LifeSpirit
Congregational Church intrigued the judge.
"Can a psychic tell when this case will
finish?" Brieant asked as she stepped down. Weber just smiled.
The trial resumes Monday.
----------------------------------------
If you want to keep track as the local newspaper
reports the progress of the trial, the URL is http://www.nyjournalnews.com/news. [site appears neglected]
FYI, a couple of the things complained of
by the plaintiffs, which were reported in yesterday's news, were
the D.A.R.E. program and the "Magic the Gathering"
card game. Apparently, the plaintiffs objected to D.A.R.E. (a
national anti-drug and anti-alcohol program) is being offensive
because they wanted to reserve for themselves how to discuss
these matters with their children. They objected to the refusal
of the school to bar the playing of the "Magic the Gathering"
card game by other students, because it allegedly brought satanic
influences into the school.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: Re: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:38:23 -0500
I found the preceding day's story in the archive
of the local Gannett paper. I couldn't find any other reporting
on the case. For the sake of completion and the interest of those
following this thread, here it is. I don't remember where I read
about the D.A.R.E. complaint; maybe one of the New York City
papers.
-------------
Student liked game that prompted suit
against schools
By BRUCE GOLDING
COPYRIGHT 1999 The Journal News. All rights reserved.
Publication date: 2/24/1999
WHITE PLAINS --A student whose family claims
the Bedford Central School District illegally promotes non-Christian
religions and Satanism testified yesterday that he had enjoyed
playing the controversial card game at the heart of the case.
The schools superintendent also said the game
was no longer being played inside the district's schools, mainly
because students were no longer interested in it.
Russell Altman, 14, said he played Magic:
The Gathering for several months as part of a once-a-week school
club when he was in fifth grade at Pound Ridge Elementary School
three years ago.
The teen -- who now attends parochial school
-- said he initially had his parents' permission to play the
fantasy-based strategy game, then stopped when they told him
to do so.
Under cross-examination by the schools' lawyer,
Altman admitted that he thought the game was "fun"
when he played it. He also said that he grew bored of it after
a while, and that was also a reason he stopped playing.
Altman's family is among three Roman Catholic
families suing in federal court to block the school from allowing
Magic within its walls, on grounds that the game amounts to dabbling
in devil-worship.
Some cards used in the game feature lurid
images of demons and occult practices, including human sacrifice,
and the lawsuit -- the subject of a nonjury trial that began
Monday -- grew out of a 1995 controversy over Magic in the Bedford
schools.
The plaintiffs also allege that various school
programs and activities -- including annual Earth Day ceremonies
and lessons about Aztec and Hindu gods -- amount to the illegal
promotion of New Age spirituality and non-Christian religions.
Schools Superintendent Bruce Dennis testified
yesterday that the district's policy was to teach about religion,
but not to actually teach it, and to maintain a "balance"
in the display of holiday decorations.
Dennis also said the Magic game was no longer
being played in the schools because a parent who had voluntarily
supervised one club quit to take a paying job, and a teacher
who supervised another had retired.
But Dennis -- who briefly imposed a moratorium
on the game during the earlier controversy -- said there was
no policy preventing resumption of the game should students seek
to establish new clubs.
The trial, before U.S. District Judge Charles
L. Brieant, was scheduled to continue this morning with testimony
from a psychic who led students in "right brain" exercises
objected to by the plaintiffs.
------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:24:38 -0500
"Tolz, Robert" wrote:
I found the preceding day's story in the
archive of the local Gannett paper. I couldn't find any other
reporting on the case.
I believe I posted the AP story on this when
it came over the wire. Must be below radar at this point.
Seems like holding any personal convictions
as a teacher is being called into question. Maybe the future
is in developing intelligent educational agents to piece together
a curriculum based on parent preferences. (These agents already
exits for comparative shopping, and the latest Wired has an article
on the probably evolution of the semi sentient agent in the economy
[they will set out with a set of preferences to say, negotiate
all of Dan's wiring needs from various vendors with their own
set of bargaining bots.])
I have a couple of bots filtering newsfeeds
for me. Anyone read Karl Capek's "War With the Newts"?
(grin)
e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Debra Snell
Subject: Re: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:17:13 -0800
Thanks for sharing the article. Sounds like
something PLANS should be watching.
Best,
Deby
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: RE: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 11:35:54 -0800
[This is the first article in the series,
Feb. 23. -dD-]
Students describe non-Christian school
practice
By BRUCE GOLDING
COPYRIGHT 1999 The Journal News. All rights reserved. Publication
date:
2/23/1999
WHITE PLAINS --Lessons about Aztec and Hindu
gods, annual Earth Day ceremonies and a card game with demonic
references were among the schoolhouse activities six students
described yesterday at the start of a federal trial over education
policies in the Bedford Central School District.
Steven DiNozzi, 13, testified that his religious
beliefs were offended when a bird fashioned from a milk carton
and tissue paper -- representing the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl --
was hung inside his former classroom at the Pound Ridge Elementary
School.
"I knew it was wrong because another
god is against the commandments," said the teen, who now
attends a private religious school.
DiNozzi's family is one of three Roman Catholic
families suing the school district, saying it promoted non-Christian
religions, New Age spirituality and satanism under the guise
of "multiculturalism" and an "enriched curriculum."
"We seek, quite simply, an injunction
prohibiting further violations of the First Amendment by this
out-of-control school district and its personnel," plaintiffs'
lawyer James Bendell said in his opening statement yesterday.
Bendell also said the case offered an opportunity
to end what he called a double standard allowing teachers to
"smuggle in" lessons about Eastern and other religions
while not permitting lessons about Christianity.
Defense lawyer Warren Richmond said the plaintiffs'
allegations "mischaracterized, and in some instances wildly
misrepresented, the programs and activities they challenge."
Richmond also said the courses under attack,
including the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program and a peer-counseling
program, were "standard educational fare replicated throughout
the United States."
"What distinguishes the Bedford school
district is not satanic activities but rather the excellence
of its students, curriculum and faculty," Richmond said
in his opening.
The nonjury trial before U.S. District Judge
Charles L. Brieant grew out of a 1995 controversy over a fantasy-based
card game called Magic: The Gathering, which was formerly played
during before- and after-school clubs in the district.
Some game cards feature lurid images depicting
demons and occult rituals, including human sacrifice.
Yesterday, several student witnesses said
they found cards for the game inside their classroom cubbyholes
one St. Valentine's Day, but none played the game because of
its satanic overtones.
"The cards were, like, really scary,
and it's against my religion," eighth-grader Tiana "Niki"
DiBari testified.
After seeing the cards, DiBari's grandmother
and legal guardian, Mary Ann DiBari, and DiNozzi's mother, Cecile
DiNozzi, both objected to Magic being played in the schools,
prompting a 30-day moratorium imposed by the schools superintendent.
Joseph DiNozzi, Steven's twin brother, testified
that the action prompted an angry backlash from some of the game's
fans, who he said taunted him by waving game cards in his face
and saying, "Magic." He also said he was punched in
the stomach.
During cross-examination, Richmond questioned
several students about the amount of time they spent preparing
for their testimony and about how they were able to recall specific
details from the classes being questioned, some of which took
place six years ago.
One witness, 15-year-old Krystal DiBari --
who testified that her fourth-grade class was told to make clay
images of the elephant-headed Hindu god Ganesha -- blushed as
she was unable to recall what books she read in English class
the same year.
Brieant, who has openly questioned whether
the case belongs in federal court, urged lawyers on both sides
to speed up the trial several times. At one point, he addressed
17-year-old John DiNozzi's complaints about an Earth Day ceremony
at Fox Lane High School.
"Senior citizens told them: Dust thou
art and dust shall you return," Brieant said. "Shocking,
isn't it?"
Testimony was scheduled to continue this morning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 21:03:08 +0100
My fellow subscribers,
I have been rather curious about Dan Dugan's
religious cosmology. Now I understand that he may be an orthodox
Christian, and that one of his major objestions to anthroposophy
is the pagan elements of Nordic myths and the idea of the sun
god. For this reason, he is citing the plights of devout Roman
Catholics against Aztec and Hindu teachings, that have become
intriguingly intermingled with charges of Satanism. Maybe anthroposophists
too are eating babies after all?
Or perhaps it all has to do with the fact
that Hindu lore lends support to the Theosophical version of
evolution, so the Hindus must be Nazis. The Aryans, after all,
include the populations of Iran and parts of India, so you never
know in which schools the swastica-packing gurus are hiding out
these days.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:07:25 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume [mailto:[email protected]]
I have been rather curious about Dan Dugan's
religious cosmology. Now I understand that he may be an orthodox
Christian, and that one of his major objestions to anthroposophy
is the pagan elements of Nordic myths and the idea of the sun
god. For this reason, he is citing the plights of devout Roman
Catholics against Aztec and Hindu teachings, that have become
intriguingly intermingled with charges of Satanism.
Cut Dan a bit of slack here, Tarjei. All he
was doing was filling in part of the series of news stories that
I had already started posting to the list. I don't think his
intentions in posting the message you were referring to were
anything other than to help make an interesting record more complete.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: RE: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:33:08 +0100
I wrote:
I have been rather curious about Dan Dugan's
religious cosmology. Now I understand that he may be an orthodox
Christian, and hat one of his major objections to anthroposophy
is the pagan elements of Nordic myths and the idea of the sun
god. For this reason, he is citing the plights of devout Roman
Catholics against Aztec and Hindu teachings, that have become
intriguingly intermingled with charges of Satanism.
Bob Tolz wrote:
Cut Dan a bit of slack here, Tarjei. All he was doing was
filling in part of the series of news stories that I had already
started posting to the list. I don't think his intentions in
posting the message you were referring to were anything other
than to help make an interesting record more complete.
Point well taken, Bob. I wanted to attract
attention to the power of associations, which, by the way, is
a technique also used by practitoners of mind control. Secondly,
I am sincerely curious about Dan's religious philosophy and cosmology,
and his interpretation of Charles Darwin.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: RE: Watch it, PLANS! (Bedford 3/3/99)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 00:43:23 -0800
5 Bedford teens deny Satan worship
By LANNING TALIAFERRO
COPYRIGHT 1999 The Journal News. All rights reserved. Publication
date:
3/3/1999
WHITE PLAINS -- Five Bedford teen-agers testifying
in federal court yesterday disputed former classmates' charges
that elementary school teachers violated their religious rights.
Their testimony supported that of a trio of
Pound Ridge Elementary School teachers whose programs are under
attack from three Roman Catholic families who say the Bedford
school district illegally promotes non-Christian religions, New
Age spirituality and the occult. The families have sued to stop
the practices.
The week-old nonjury trial should end tomorrow,
said U.S. District Judge Charles Brieant.
Students and teachers testifying on behalf
of the school district acknowledged that they studied the Hindu
elephant god, Ganesha, while learning about India's culture and
geography in fourth grade. But they agreed that no one had been
told to build shrines, bring food offerings, pray to or make
clay images of Ganesha as the plaintiffs charge.
"We were told it was something that brought
good luck and was something that Indians believed," said
Julia Trotta, 16.
Teacher Jacqueline Reizes said she was following
New York's social-studies curriculum when she read her pupils
a legend about Ganesha and then had them make construction paper
pictures of its head.
"I don't think my children making a picture
of Ganesha was a religious experience for them," she said.
Pressed by the family's lawyer, James Bendell,
Reizes conceded she would consider a picture of Jesus made for
a class project a religious image.
Melissa Landau, 16, said her fourth-grade
class did three art projects while studying India: the Ganesha
head, a geometric design made from beans and a homemade version
of an Indian board game. Landau testified that Reizes had not
told students to display or worship Ganesha at home, as alleged
by the Altman, DiNozzi and DiBari children.
Defense attorneys Neil Block and Warren Richmond
entered Landau's art work into evidence.
A Jesuit priest called by the plaintiffs explained
why Catholics would be offended by the Ganesha project.
"This is something that goes against
the Second Commandment," said the Rev. Mitchell Pacwa, a
University of Dallas professor. "The problem would be that
we may not make images of other gods."
He told Brieant pictures fall under the Bible's
prohibition against "graven images" because they can
be meant as a focus for worship.
"I'm sure pictures of a crucifixion hanging
in a classroom would be offensive to some people," he said.
Pacwa said spiritual elements could be improperly
introduced even if teachers were not instructing students about
religion. He cited the Sikh minister who led yoga stretching
and breathing exercises in physical education classes at Fox
Lane High School last year as an example. Yogis, he testified,
say the primary purpose of yoga is to "achieve oneness with
the universe."
"You're certainly introducing the children
to a religious practice," Pacwa said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kathy
Subject: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:40:00 -0800
Robert Tolz posted:
There's a federal trial ongoing now in
my county, dealing with a nearby school district which is being
charged as illegally promoting religion. I suspect that when
the decision comes down, it may have some precedential value
for the PLANS lawsuit, though I'm sure it will be distinguishable
in a number of ways. Here's this morning's report on the trial.
I'm sure you will all find it intriguing:
The newspaper article you posted describes
a case in which children are allegedly being taught religious
beliefs or led in religious practices (yoga) that are offensive
to a particular group of families. It also involves the use of
Magic Cards on campus and presentation of the D.A.R.E. program.
These allegations are not analogous to the
PLANS litigation (except perhaps, if one stretches the connection,
the Yoga exercises). PLANS alleges that school funds are being
paid to a sectarian organization (Rudolf Steiner College) and
this is a direct violation of the California State Consititution.
The case also alleges that the Waldorf method, as taught in the
2 public schools being sued, is based on religious beliefs and
these beliefs guide the pedagogy. It also alleges that teachers
are illegally being required to take Waldorf teacher training
at a sectarian institution.
These types of allegations are not part of
the case you quoted.
Kathy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:55:47 -0500
Kathy Sutphen posts:
These allegations are not analogous to
the PLANS litigation (except perhaps, if one stretches the connection,
the Yoga exercises). PLANS alleges that school funds are being
paid to a sectarian organization (Rudolf Steiner College) and
this is a direct violation of the California State Consititution.
The case also alleges that the Waldorf method, as taught in the
2 public schools being sued, is based on religious beliefs and
these beliefs guide the pedagogy. It also alleges that teachers
are illegally being required to take Waldorf teacher training
at a sectarian institution.
Can any of the PLANS board members on the
list comment on the current status of your federal lawsuit, beyond
the complaint itself?
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:45:56 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy
The newspaper article you posted describes
a case in which children are allegedly being taught religious
beliefs or led in religious practices (yoga) that are offensive
to a particular group of families. It also involves the use of
Magic Cards on campus and presentation of the D.A.R.E. program.
These allegations are not analogous to the PLANS litigation (except
perhaps, if one stretches the connection, the Yoga exercises).
PLANS alleges that school funds are being paid to a sectarian
organization (Rudolf Steiner College) and this is a direct violation
of the California State Consititution. The case also alleges
that the Waldorf method, as taught in the 2 public schools being
sued, is based on religious beliefs and these beliefs guide the
pedagogy. It also alleges that teachers are illegally being required
to take Waldorf teacher training at a sectarian institution.
These types of allegations are not part of the case you quoted.
As I believe I mentioned, the facts are certainly
quite distinguishable. However, I will follow the case with interest
nevertheless.
I'm looking forward to what the judge might
say about the exercises taught by the yoga person and the psychic.
If, as I suspect, he rules that what they teach arguably has
a non-sectarian value, then the fact that the teaching is based
upon some religious belief probably does not make it an unlawful
religious intrusion. This is something that the judge could rule
in the PLANS case as well, even if he were to make a finding
that anthroposophy is a religion. Thus, he could find in favor
of the school district without having to inquire about the religious
foundation of the methods. Would you prevent a school sports
program from teaching martial arts simply because they stem from
a religious foundation?
I have more difficulty with the requirement
that individuals have to take training at a "sectarian"
institution. To analyze the issue, let's assume that the training
is at a Catholic seminary as opposed to a Steiner college, so
that we dispose of the quarrel, in your favor, over whether or
not the teaching institution is sectarian or non-sectarian. Again,
I think a judge could quite easily find that so long as the training
is in methods of pedagogy, there is no lawful intrusion of religion.
If the training involves giving background in the spiritual foundation
of the pedagogy, then I think it would come down to whether the
judge determines, as a factual matter, that it consists of unlawful
indoctrination or something which is more on the order of FYI.
If the trainee is not required to "believe" in Steiner
and anthroposophy, it would seem more like FYI to me.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to prevent a public
school from teaching a course in comparative religions. Such
a course does not require the student to believe. Let's say that
after the pre-requisite survey course in comparative religions,
the public school then offers an elective advance class where
the student can make an in-depth study of either Buddhism, Hinduism,
Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, Zoroastrianism or Pagan Religions.
I doubt that you would consider that to be offensive either.
I think the question comes down to whether
or not the public school is being used for religious indoctrination
of either the students or the teachers. The presentation of facts
in the PLANS case is likely to be crucial to the judge's determination.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:40:54 -0500
I agree with Bob's summary observation and
opinion.
The fact of the matter is WE does not indoctrinate
the students, empirically speaking. Of what I've read from Steiner's
spiritual writings (which ironically comes exclusively from this
list), I believe almost nothing.
I do think his (holistic) curriculum is superior
for the individual, for the thinker, for the artist and for the
activist, no matter what your belief system (unless you are a
fascist).
e
"Tolz, Robert" wrote:
I think the question comes down to whether
or not the public school is being used
for religious indoctrination of either the students or the teachers.
The presentation of facts in the PLANS case is likely to be crucial
to the judge's determination.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: RE: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:32:45 -0700
On 26 Feb 99, at 9:45, Tolz, Robert wrote:
If the training involves giving background
in the spiritual foundation of the pedagogy, then I think it
would come down to whether the judge determines, as a factual
matter, that it consists of unlawful indoctrination or something
which is more on the order of FYI. If the trainee is not required
to "believe" in Steiner and anthroposophy, it would
seem more like FYI to me.
Yes. One indication of whether it is indoctrination
or merely background is the response to those who question the
beliefs. If questioning the existence of the astral body in class
results in a good discussion of what "astral body"
means, with the question being seen as a valuable topic for discussion,
that would tend to show that it's background.
But if questioning the existence of the astral
body is met with disapproval, anger, or an attempt by the teacher
to convince the student that it does, indeed, exist, that would
tend to show indoctrination.
From Kathy's account of her treatment, I suspect
the latter. But I don't know what other witnesses would say.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:27:18 -0500
Steve Premo wrote:
On 26 Feb 99, at 9:45, Tolz, Robert wrote:
If the training involves giving background
in the spiritual foundation of the pedagogy, then I think it
would come down to whether the judge determines, as a factual
matter, that it consists of unlawful indoctrination or something
which is more on the order of FYI. If the trainee is not required
to "believe" in Steiner and anthroposophy, it would
seem more like FYI to me.
Yes. One indication of whether it is indoctrination
or merely background is the response to those who question the
beliefs. If questioning the existence of the astral body in class
results in a good discussion of what "astral body"
means, with the question being seen as a valuable topic for discussion,
that would tend to show that it's background.
But if questioning the existence of the astral body is met with
disapproval, anger, or an attempt by the teacher to convince
the student that it does, indeed, exist, that would tend to show
indoctrination.
From Kathy's account of her treatment, I suspect the latter.
But I don't know what other witnesses would say.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
I don't know if it much matters to people
on this list, but the court case involves classroom behavior
for students, not teachers.
The example you give, Steve, does not apply
since WE does not teach such things to students.
With regard to Kathy, I know the principals
of her rancor personally, and would testify as to _their_ character.
e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:17:10 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Premo [mailto:[email protected]]
Yes. One indication of whether it is indoctrination
or merely background is the response to those who question the
beliefs. If questioning the existence of the astral body in class
results in a good discussion of what "astral body"
means, with the question being seen as a valuable topic for discussion,
that would tend to show that it's background.
But if questioning the existence of the astral body is met with
disapproval, anger, or an attempt by the teacher to convince
the student that it does, indeed, exist, that would tend to show
indoctrination.
I tend to agree with you that an attempt to
convince would tend to show indoctrination. But I think PLANS
would have to show a consistent pattern rather than a single,
or even several, isolated cases where a teacher shows disapproval
or anger.
The reason for that is you have to separate
the training as a whole from what might simply be a trainer who
is simply lacking in communication or social skills or who does
not have a clear head about backing off from any attempt to convince
a student about the truth of Steiner's cosmology.
What might be interesting to see is whether
the Steiner College has any written materials which tell its
trainers what approach they need to take with the trainees. Do
the trainers themselves get any training in this context?
From Kathy's account of her treatment,
I suspect the latter. But I don't know what other witnesses would
say.
I have no reason to doubt Kathy's account
of what she experienced. As you mention, one wonders what other
witnesses will say.
A number of participants on this list, myself
included, have questioned (nay -- criticized) the habit of some
Waldorf Critics to generalize from the specific to the general.
The fact that Kathy had a particular experience does not necessarily
mean that her experience is replicated across the board.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:11:34 +0100
Ezra Beeman wrote:
I don't know if it much matters to people
on this list, but the court case involves classroom behavior
for students, not teachers. The example you give, Steve, does
not apply since WE does not teach such things to students.
This is a critics' technique that tends to
repeat itself once in a while: Instead of rational argument,
they use the power of subtle association. For example, when Dan
Dugan said that all anthroposophical doctors should have their
medical licences revoked because they were all guilty of quackery,
someone posted a report about religious sects denying necessary
medical care to children in favor of prayer. Now we're getting
reports about white-robed teachers using Tarot, Yogic mantras,
and crystal balls or whatever. Soon they'll have classes in channeling
extra-terrestials and automatic writing.
It's an appeal, unconscious perhaps, to the
power of association: Waldorf schools are run by anthropops,
anthropops are weirdos, and all weirdos are alike. Eastern religions
are mumbo-jumbo quackeries infecting education and medicine all
over the place, and anthropops have the virus, but they're hiding
it with sneaky and dishonest and conniving trickery, trying to
fool y'all. Lock'em up and throw away the key. They're hungry
for your kids.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kathy
Subject: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 20:56:52 -0800
Robert Tolz posted:
Would you prevent a school sports program from teaching martial
arts simply because they stem from a religious foundation?
I would if public school funds were going
to a sectarian organization in order to provide the program.
I have more difficulty with the requirement that individuals
have to take training at a "sectarian" institution.
To analyze the issue, let's assume that the training is at a
Catholic seminary as opposed to a Steiner college, so that we
dispose of the quarrel, in your favor, over whether or not the
teaching institution is sectarian or non-sectarian. Again, I
think a judge could quite easily find that so long as the training
is in methods of pedagogy, there is no lawful intrusion of religion.
If the training involves giving background in the spiritual foundation
of the pedagogy, then I think it would come down to whether the
judge determines, as a factual matter, that it consists of unlawful
indoctrination or something which is more on the order of FYI.
The training I received at Rudolf Steiner
College contained a great deal of unlawful indoctrination.
If the trainee is not required to "believe"
in Steiner and anthroposophy, it would seem more like FYI to
me.
I was never told that I was required to believe
in Steiner and Anthroposophy, but I was certainly required to
*believe in* Waldorf. As it became increasingly apparent that
I was not a "believer" I gradually became the victim
of shunning, character assassination, etc. Furthermore, the classes
taught by RSC personnel were unlike any other teaching/college
courses I had ever taken. We were not permitted to question what
we were being taught, we were just to do the exercise or listen
to the lecture. I recall one class in which I asked why we were
once again engaging in a particular activity and I was shouted
at, "JUST DO IT!"
I'm sure you wouldn't want to prevent a public school from
teaching a course in comparative religions. Such a course does
not require the student to believe.
Gosh, how many times have I heard one version
or another of the "comparative religion" argument.
Is this what is being taught 2nd graders? It's a great way for
Waldorf to get off the hook with their religious indoctrination:
"It's a course in comparative religion for grade school
children."
Let's say that after the pre-requisite
survey course in comparative religions, the public school then
offers an elective advance class where the student can make an
in-depth study of either Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity,
Taoism, Zoroastrianism or Pagan Religions. I doubt that you would
consider that to be offensive either.
As far as I'm concerned the point is moot.
Generally speaking, these types of courses are taught on the
university level, not in grade school. What public school or
nonsectarin private school, even high schools, do you know that
teach a course such the ones you describe above?
I think the question comes down to whether
or not the public school is being used for religious indoctrination
of either the students or the teachers.
Yes, this is certainly one of the points.
Another point is the violation of the state constitution and,
perhaps, the federal constitution as school funds (in the hundreds
of thousands of dollars - maybe millions by now) are funneled
into the Rudolf Steiner College coffers. The latter point is
what I believe the issue boils down to. I suspect RSC was in
desperate need of funding and successfully sought to obtain it,
illegally, by tapping public school funds. As a positive byproduct,
for the diehard Anthroposophists connected with the RSC movement
into the public arena, teachers and school children are being
indoctrinated with Anthroposophical beliefs.
The presentation of facts in the PLANS
case is likely to be crucial to the judge's determination.
It goes without saying.
Kathy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:24:37 -0700
On 26 Feb 99, at 12:27, Ezra Beeman wrote:
I don't know if it much matters to people
on this list, but the court case involves classroom behavior
for students, not teachers. The example you give, Steve, does
not apply since WE does not teach such things to students.
Kathy mentioned three things involved in the
court case. She said:
PLANS alleges that school funds are being
paid to a sectarian organization (Rudolf Steiner College) and
this is a direct violation of the California State Consititution.
The case also alleges that the Waldorf method, as taught in the
2 public schools being sued, is based on religious beliefs and
these beliefs guide the pedagogy. It also alleges that teachers
are illegally being required to take Waldorf teacher training
at a sectarian institution.
So there are three issues, none of which turn
on whether anthroposophy is taught to the students:
1. Whether it is a violation of the constitution
to pay school funds to Rudolf Steiner College for teacher training;
2. Whether it is a violation of the constitution
to teach using a method which is based on religious beliefs,
and if so, whether the facts support this claim; and
3. Whether teachers are required to submit
to religious indoctrination in order to teach at the school.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:32:31 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy
Would you prevent a school sports program
from teaching martial arts simply because they stem from a religious
foundation?
I would if public school funds were going
to a sectarian organization in order to provide the program.
By your answer, it would seem that you would
admit that it's OK to teach martial arts if the funds were going
to a non-sectarian organization. It follows then that if the
judge determines that the Rudolf Steiner College is non-sectarian,
he should not object to teaching Waldorf in the public schools.
Is that a fair assessment of what you would think his logic ought
to be (even if you don't agree with his pronouncement that RSC
is non-sectarian)?
I would take it a step further though. I would
think it is permissible to pay funds to a non-sectarian organization
to provide training to teachers if that organization is the best
source for the training.
Let me pose a hypothetical for you to explore
the logic and the legalities here. Suppose that a public school
wants to offer a particular brand of martial arts to its students
and it is willing to send its young physical education teacher,
George, for training. There are two options available for the
training. One is to send George to a Buddhist monastery where
the grand master of this particular martial art resides. The
other choice is to send him for training at a local commercial
establishment where all of the trainers are people who have trained
under the Buddhist grand master.
I take it that your position would be that
the public school would be prohibited from paying the Buddhist
monastery to train George because the money is going to a sectarian
institution. Though I haven't researched it, I doubt that's the
law.
Leaving aside for the moment the question
of whether RSC is engaged in impermissible indoctrination of
the teacher trainees (which we'll get to in a moment), I also
doubt that it's the law that a public school would be prohibited
from paying RSC (even if it is found to be a sectarian institution)
if the RSC is the best source for training.
[Bob Tolz speaking now]
If the training involves giving background
in the spiritual foundation of the pedagogy, then I think it
would come down to whether the judge determines, as a factual
matter, that it consists of unlawful indoctrination or something
which is more on the order of FYI.
[Kathy]
The training I received at Rudolf Steiner
College contained a great deal of unlawful indoctrination.
Objection, your Honor. That is a legal conclusion
given by the witness, not a statement of fact to which the witness
may testify. Please have the witness's comment stricken from
the record. :-)
[Bob Tolz]
If the trainee is not required to "believe"
in Steiner and anthroposophy, it would seem more like FYI to
me.
I was never told that I was required to
believe in Steiner and Anthroposophy, but I was certainly required
to *believe in* Waldorf.
[In my summation to the judge at the end of
the trial....] May it please the Court, the witness made the
crucial admission that she was not indoctrinated in what she
alleges to be the religious underpinnings of the pedagogical
method. She alleges only that she was required to accept the
pedagogical method itself. This is not religious indoctrination.
If the witness were not able to accept the pedagogical method,
then it is readily apparent that she should not be teaching in
a program where it is required that the particular pedagogical
method be used.
As it became increasingly apparent that
I was not a "believer" I gradually became the victim
of shunning, character assassination, etc. Furthermore, the classes
taught by RSC personnel were unlike any other teaching/college
courses I had ever taken. We were not permitted to question what
we were being taught, we were just to do the exercise or listen
to the lecture. I recall one class in which I asked why we were
once again engaging in a particular activity and I was shouted
at, "JUST DO IT!"
While it is entirely lamentable that the witness
had certain experiences with the training staff which she judged
to be offensive, those experiences do not detract from the conclusion
that she was not subjected to unlawful religious indoctrination.
That an instructor required an almost "religious" and
unquestioning focus on how to apply a pedagogical method and
become a "believer" in the method does not constitute
unlawful religous indoctrination any more than when a college
football coach demands religious and unquestioning focus on his
particular brand of training and play. the witness may not have
been exposed to this method of training before, but the method
of training (for a pedagogical method that her school district,
in its wisdom, determined to have a valid non-sectarian objective)
is not unconstitutional.
[Bob Tolz]
I'm sure you wouldn't want to prevent a
public school from teaching a course in comparative religions.
Such a course does not require the student to believe.
[Kathy]
Gosh, how many times have I heard one version
or another of the "comparative religion" argument.
Is this what is being taught 2nd graders? It's a great way for
Waldorf to get off the hook with their religious indoctrination:
"It's a course in comparative religion for grade school
children."
I apologize for not making myself clear. My
reference to a course in comparative religions is meant to stay
with the analysis of the training you received, not what the
children receive. I'm not leaving the Rudolf Steiner College
and going back into the grade school here. You admit that you
were not required to believe in Steiner's beliefs or in anthroposophy.
Therefore, whatever information you may have received respected
those areas was no different from what you might have heard in
a course in comparative religions.
I think the question comes down to whether
or not the public school is being used for religious indoctrination
of either the students or the teachers.
Yes, this is certainly one of the points.
Another point is the violation of the state constitution and,
perhaps, the federal constitution as school funds (in the hundreds
of thousands of dollars - maybe millions by now) are funneled
into the Rudolf Steiner College coffers. The latter point is
what I believe the issue boils down to.
I do not think the U.S. Constitution prohibits
payment of funds to RSC, even if it is determined to be a sectarian
educational institution, for services rendered by RSC to implement
a program which a public school district determines meets a valid,
non-sectarian purpose. How the state constitution applies, I
have absolutely no idea.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kathy
Subject: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:35:53 -0800
Bob Tolz inquired:
Would you prevent a school sports program
from teaching martial arts simply because they stem from a religious
foundation?
Kathy responded:
I would if public school funds were going
to a sectarian organization in order to provide the program.
Bob:
Leaving aside for the moment the question
of whether RSC is engaged in impermissible indoctrination of
the teacher trainees (which we'll get to in a moment), I also
doubt that it's the law that a public school would be prohibited
from paying RSC (even if it is found to be a sectarian institution)
if the RSC is the best source for training.
The California Constitution prohibits the
payment of public school funds to sectarian organization. See
the PLANS website for the specifics.
Bob:
[In my summation to the judge at the end of the trial....]
May it please the Court, the witness made the crucial admission
that she was not indoctrinated in what she alleges to be the
religious underpinnings of the pedagogical method. She alleges
only that she was required to accept the pedagogical method itself.
This is not religious indoctrination. If the witness were not
able to accept the pedagogical method, then it is readily apparent
that she should not be teaching in a program where it is required
that the particular pedagogical method be used.
Kathy:
When I originally accepted a position with
this Office of Education it was simply to teach according to
the California state frameworks. I was required to have a California
teacher's credential and, of course, my prior experience predisposed
me as a good choice to work with the at-risk students at the
specific school site where I was assigned. There was no mention
of Waldorf until several years later.
How about this as a possible scenario: Imaginary
judge, sitting in chambers & trying to decide this case from
all the evidence presented:
"The pedagogy is based on a spiritual
foundation derived from the collected works of one man, now deceased.
This man's name is on the teacher's college. This man's poetry
(Calendar of the Soul) is on promotional literature. This Calendar
of the Soul (& it's polar verse) is based on both a form
of astrology and a mixture of Christianity and nature worship.
The contents of the curriculum are a clever admixture of so many
religiously oriented ideas, that while it is, perhaps, not _a_
religion, it is, nevertheless _religious_. At the very least,
it is, by the defendant's admission in public ad copy, _spiritual_.
While, perhaps, the deceptive level is quite
high here, my duty (as a judge) is to be impartial and fair.
It is also evident that the defendents are going to great lengths
to 1) push this pedagogy on the public system and, 2) deny any
spiritual aspect, despite the testimony of witnesses and this
itching feeling I get in my frontal lobes as I try to read the
writings of this Rudolf Steiner.
I find for the plaintiff on the grounds that
the defense has not proved to my satisfaction that Waldorf pedagogy
_is not_ religiously based. Furthermore, I interpret the Constitution,
in the establishment clause, to include "spiritual"
teachings as a synonym for religion.
The guidance of a student's soul development
is not Constitutional. It directly contravenes the student's
right to "liberty" and to "freedom of worship".
Further, it is ordered that Rudolf Steiner
College refund all moneys received from the school districts
in question."
Kathy:
As it became increasingly apparent that
I was not a "believer" I gradually became the victim
of shunning, character assassination, etc. Furthermore, the classes
taught by RSC personnel were unlike any other teaching/college
courses I had ever taken. We were not permitted to question what
we were being taught, we were just to do the exercise or listen
to the lecture. I recall one class in which I asked why we were
once again engaging in a particular activity and I was shouted
at, "JUST DO IT!"
Bob (as attorney for defense)
While it is entirely lamentable that the
witness had certain experiences with the training staff which
she judged to be offensive, those experiences do not detract
from the conclusion that she was not subjected to unlawful religious
indoctrination. That an instructor required an almost "religious"
and unquestioning focus on how to apply a pedagogical method
and become a "believer" in the method does not constitute
unlawful religous indoctrination any more than when a college
football coach demands religious and unquestioning focus on his
particular brand of training and play. the witness may not have
been exposed to this method of training before, but the method
of training (for a pedagogical method that her school district,
in its wisdom, determined to have a valid non-sectarian objective)
is not unconstitutional.
Kathy:
However, your Honor, (attorney for the plaintiff),
no public school district would allow a football coach to "demand
a religious & unquestioning" focus on his particular
brand of play. "Religious & unquestioning" are
in direct contravention of the open and questioning environment
that is found and should be present in all classrooms operating
under the establishment clause. I would even go so far, Your
Honor, as to state that "religious & unquestioning"
are directly opposite to the requirements of any educational
endeavor in a consitutional republic operating on democratic
principles. Where there is "religious & unquestioning"
behavior, there is no freedom of expression. This is in direct
contravention of the First Amendement to the Constitution of
the United States. I believe you will see, Your Honor, that by
demanding "religious & unquestioning" behavior,
Ms Sutphen's right to freedom of speech was violated; perhaps
her right to "freedom of association" was also impinged
upon.. Also, Your Honor, Ms Sutphen's subsequent experiences
with the faculty and administration of RSC violated her right
to "the pursuit of happiness".
My esteemed colleague, Mr Tolz, forgets that
no school district may even require a "religious & unquestioning"
attitude towards the flag and constitution of the United States
of America. We in this country stand for freedom of thought,
expression, and belief. Your Honor, why did this teacher training
facility require "religious & unquestioning" behavior
from a public teacher-trainee? And, Your Honor, can one infer
from that behavior that "religious & unquestioning"
are demanded also of the parents and students of Waldorf Education?
Bob:
I'm sure you wouldn't want to prevent a
public school from teaching a course in comparative religions.
Such a course does not require the student to believe.
[Kathy]
Gosh, how many times have I heard one version
or another of the "comparative religion" argument.
Is this what is being taught 2nd graders? It's a great way for
Waldorf to get off the hook with their religious indoctrination:
"It's a course in comparative religion for grade school
children."
I apologize for not making myself clear.
My reference to a course in comparative religions is meant to
stay with the analysis of the training you received, not what
the children receive. I'm not leaving the Rudolf Steiner College
and going back into the grade school here. You admit that you
were not required to believe in Steiner's beliefs or in anthroposophy.
Therefore, whatever information you may have received respected
those areas was no different from what you might have heard in
a course in comparative religions.
No public school teacher training course in
the United States, nor in any Western democracy, can require
a comparative religion course if that study violates the beliefs
of the student. Why would a program of pedagogical training include,
or, indeed, even allude to a course in Comparative Religion?
And, in a course of Comparative Religion, where is there room
for a 2nd level elective "concentrating" on any of
the religions outlined by the esteemed Mr. Tolz?
It would appear that Mr. Tolz is attempting
to draft an argument that supports Waldorf teacher training as
innocuous and also attempts to convince the court that Comparative
Religion is a necessary part of any public school teacher's training.
This is based on a false premise, namely, that such a course
is present in any secular teacher training anywhere in the world.
Perhaps Mr Tolz will enlighten the Court as to the inclusion
of such comparative religion and concentrations in religious
study in existing pedagogical training in this country's public
sector?
Bob:
I think the question comes down to whether
or not the public school is being used for religious indoctrination
of either the students or the teachers.
Yes, this is certainly one of the points.
Another point is the violation of the state constitution and,
perhaps, the federal constitution as school funds (in the hundreds
of thousands of dollars - maybe millions by now) are funneled
into the Rudolf Steiner College coffers. The latter point is
what I believe the issue boils down to.
I do not think the U.S. Constitution prohibits
payment of funds to RSC, even if it is determined to be a sectarian
educational institution, for services rendered by RSC to implement
a program which a public school district determines meets a valid,
non-sectarian purpose. How the state constitution applies, I
have absolutely no idea.
Sounds like you need to do some research on
this issue. Once again, please refer to the article on PLANS
website: http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/AU_Novato.html
re: "Americans United to Novato School Board." John
C. Barker cites/quotes the specific portions of the California
Constitution (Article 9, Section 8 - Article 1, Section 4) and
also the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution as it pertains
to this issue.
Kathy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:18:02 -0500
Nice wishful thinking. I gather civics is
not your subject?
Last I checked, we do not run our judicial
system based upon the Napoleon code. We do not assume guilt and
then try to prove innocence. Perhaps you should examine your
cherished constitution more closely.
Kathy wrote:
I find for the plaintiff on the grounds
that the defense has not proved to my satisfaction that Waldorf
pedagogy _is not_ religiously based. Furthermore, I interpret
the Constitution, in the establishment clause, to include "spiritual"
teachings as a synonym for religion.
Oh boy, so anyone who is not a 100% true blue
materialist (and I wonder about the theoretical physicists here)
is ipso facto an adherent to Religion?? What a farce. Religious
McCarthyism mean anything to you?
The guidance of a student's soul development
is not Constitutional. It directly contravenes the student's
right to "liberty" and to "freedom of worship".
Please try and read the article I posted regarding
the religious aspect of education in toto. Or, for a more authoritative
source, try reading Socrates Republic for the relationship of
education to one's belief system.
My esteemed colleague, Mr Tolz, forgets that
no school district may even
require a "religious & unquestioning"
attitude towards the flag and constitution of the United States
of America. We in this country stand for freedom of thought,
expression, and belief.
Uh, last I checked they were outlawing vibrators
in Arkansas. Have you ever reviewed the list of banned books
in this country? Try reading Howard Zinn's 'Peopl'e History of
the U.S.' for a more lucid grasp of what this country stands
for.
As an aside, it always makes me cringe when
someone speaks for the collective.
But as I think Charlie Frey commented awhile
back, if this list represents the fiercest of WE opponents...
e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:54:45 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy
The California Constitution prohibits the payment of public school
funds to sectarian organization. See the PLANS website for the
specifics.
Interesting.
How about this as a possible scenario:
Imaginary judge, sitting in chambers & trying to decide this
case from all the evidence presented:
Your clairvoyance is as good as mine. :-)
I find for the plaintiff on the grounds that the defense has
not proved to my satisfaction that Waldorf pedagogy _is not_
religiously based.
Here's where PLANS probably has a heavier
burden than the school district. Ordinarily, the burden of proof
is on the **plaintiff**.
Further, it is ordered that Rudolf Steiner
College refund all moneys received from the school districts
in question."
Now *that* would make news.
Kathy:
However, your Honor, (attorney for the
plaintiff), no public school district would allow a football
coach to "demand a religious & unquestioning" focus
on his particular brand of play.
I suspect you're quite wrong on that count,
Kathy.
"Religious & unquestioning"
are in direct contravention of the open and questioning environment
that is found and should be present in all classrooms operating
under the establishment clause. I would even go so far, Your
Honor, as to state that "religious & unquestioning"
are directly opposite to the requirements of any educational
endeavor in a consitutional republic operating on democratic
principles. Where there is "religious & unquestioning"
behavior, there is no freedom of expression. This is in direct
contravention of the First Amendement to the Constitution of
the United States.
Though I've never been in academic circles,
I suspect your argument certainly represents the academic ideal,
but that reality often falls far short of it in many educational
circumstances.
I believe you will see, Your Honor, that
by demanding "religious & unquestioning" behavior,
Ms Sutphen's right to freedom of speech was violated; perhaps
her right to "freedom of association" was also impinged
upon.. Also, Your Honor, Ms Sutphen's subsequent experiences
with the faculty and administration of RSC violated her right
to "the pursuit of happiness".
Is a violation of the rights to pursuit of
happiness and freedom of association really being alleged int
the PLANS suit?
My esteemed colleague, Mr Tolz, forgets
that no school district may even require a "religious &
unquestioning" attitude towards the flag and constitution
of the United States of America. We in this country stand for
freedom of thought, expression, and belief. Your Honor, why did
this teacher training facility require "religious &
unquestioning" behavior from a public teacher-trainee?
Because, says the defendant's attorney in
rebuttal, what was being taught was a method. The witness was
being asked to implement a method, not a philosphy. The witness's
insistence on fighting the method chosen by the school district
shows that she was not prepared to implement the program which
the school district had chosen.
And, Your Honor, can one infer
from that behavior that "religious
& unquestioning" are demanded also of the parents and
students of Waldorf Education?
Not at all, says the judge. I will not interpolate
from the facts you show me with respect to teacher trainees what
was allegedly demanded of parents and students. Show me the actual
facts.
No public school teacher training course
in the United States, nor in any Western democracy, can require
a comparative religion course if that study violates the beliefs
of the student. Why would a program of pedagogical training include,
or, indeed, even allude to a course in Comparative Religion?
And, in a course of Comparative Religion, where is there room
for a 2nd level elective "concentrating" on any of
the religions outlined by the esteemed Mr. Tolz?
It would appear that Mr. Tolz is attempting to draft an argument
that supports Waldorf teacher training as innocuous and also
attempts to convince the court that Comparative Religion is a
necessary part of any public school teacher's training. This
is based on a false premise, namely, that such a course is present
in any secular teacher training anywhere in the world. Perhaps
Mr Tolz will enlighten the Court as to the inclusion of such
comparative religion and concentrations in religious study in
existing pedagogical training in this country's public sector?
The defense does not insist that comparative
religion is a necessary part of any public school teacher's training.
Rather, comparative religion, when taught without indoctrination
for historical and background information as an adjunct to learning
a secular pedagogical method, is not unconstitutional.
Bob
P.S. Although it must be fun for you to play
lawyer once in awhile, Kathy, I'm not sure I want to play teacher.
:-)
Bob:
I think the question comes down to whether
or not the public school is being used for religious indoctrination
of either the students or the teachers.
Yes, this is certainly one of the points.
Another point is the violation of the state constitution and,
perhaps, the federal constitution as school funds (in the hundreds
of thousands of dollars - maybe millions by now) are funneled
into the Rudolf Steiner College coffers. The latter point is
what I believe the issue boils down to.
I do not think the U.S. Constitution prohibits
payment of funds to RSC, even if it is determined to be a sectarian
educational institution, for services rendered by RSC to implement
a program which a public school district determines meets a valid,
non-sectarian purpose. How the state constitution applies, I
have absolutely no idea.
Sounds like you need to do some research
on this issue. Once again, please refer to the article on PLANS
website: http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/AU_Novato.html
re: "Americans United to Novato School Board."
John C. Barker cites/quotes the specific portions of the California
Constitution (Article 9, Section 8 - Article 1, Section 4) and
also the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution as it pertains
to this issue.
Kathy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:53:42 -0700
On 1 Mar 99, at 10:18, Ezra Beeman wrote:
Nice wishful thinking. I gather civics
is not your subject? Last I checked, we do not run our judicial
system based upon the Napoleon code. We do not assume guilt and
then try to prove innocence. Perhaps you should examine your
cherished constitution more closely.
This is a civil trial, Ezra, not a criminal
trial. The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it.
You're right that the plaintiffs have the
burden of proof, but not for the reasons you mention.
Not only is your insulting and condescending
tone unseemly, it is misplaced.
Kathy wrote:
My esteemed colleague, Mr Tolz, forgets
that no school district may even require a "religious &
unquestioning" attitude towards the flag and constitution
of the United States of America. We in this country stand for
freedom of thought, expression, and belief.
Uh, last I checked they were outlawing
vibrators in Arkansas. Have you ever reviewed the list of banned
books in this country?
Are you implying that this country does *not*
stand for freedom of thought, expression, and belief? The fact
that the government frequently steps over the line does not mean
that these ideals do not exist.
By the way, I have never reviewed the list
of banned books. By banned, I assume you mean that it is illegal
to publish, sell, or possess the books, not that some library
or school district has deemed them unsuitable. It is one thing
to say that the government cannot interfere with freedom of speech
and of the press, and another to say that a public library must
purchase every book that is published.
What books are banned in this country, and
why are they banned?
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 11:58:06 -0500
I do not claim to be a lawyer or an expert
in the field of law. Also, I thank you for pointing out the relevant
points in my post (I learned something).
With respect to my tone, perhaps you should
be sensitive to the fact Kathy continually insults, denigrates
and slanders someone (Betty Staley) and something (Waldorf Education)
I remember very fondly. Try, for a brief instant, to visualize
someone attacking your mentor (of sorts) and your alma mater
with politically driven rancor and insipid deduction. Then you
might understand what my understanding of insulting is.
Steve Premo wrote:
This is a civil trial, Ezra, not a criminal
trial. The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with it.
You're right that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof, but
not for the reasons you mention.
Not only is your insulting and condescending tone unseemly, it
is misplaced.
Kathy wrote:
My esteemed colleague, Mr Tolz, forgets
that no school district may even require a "religious &
unquestioning" attitude towards the flag and constitution
of the United States of America. We in this country stand for
freedom of thought, expression, and belief.
Uh, last I checked they were outlawing
vibrators in Arkansas. Have you ever reviewed the list of banned
books in this country?
Are you implying that this country does
*not* stand for freedom of thought, expression, and belief? The
fact that the government frequently steps over the line does
not mean that these ideals do not exist.
The fact these ideals may exist (but I bet
we could not get a working definition from this list), does not
mean our country stands or is based upon them. What is your point?
Ontological arguments are quite difficult to defend (unless you
are speaking in mathematics; not even physics can assure causality).
I am not implying I am stating this country
does not stand for those things. Oh sure, those or our nationalist
underpinnings, but the real motives for the revolution and the
civil war, WWI and WWII have much more to do with taxes than
anything Kathy invokes. Like I said, re-read your history. I
recommend Howard Zinn.
By the way, I have never reviewed the list
of banned books. By banned, I assume you mean that it is illegal
to publish, sell, or possess the books, not that some library
or school district has deemed them unsuitable. It is one thing
to say that the government cannot interfere with freedom of speech
and of the press, and another to say that a public library must
purchase every book that is published.
What books are banned in this country, and why are they banned?
Whoa, I am not talking about the Lorax in
Oregon here, I am speaking of books thought too violent (Clockwork
Orange) are too perverse (Catcher in the Rye) for the public
at large. How about the sedition acts of the first world war
whereby anyone printing commentary deemed un-patriotic could
be imprisoned? I was saddened to learn it was Oliver Wendel Holmes
opinion against free speech at this time which gave rise to the
'Fire in a crowded theater' counter-argument to free speech.
Personally, I could not recount them (banned
books) all, but my challenge comes from once upon a time in Greece,
where I encountered someone (an American) in a T-shirt which
listed all the banned books. It was long and depressing.
e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:33:25 -0700
On 1 Mar 99, at 11:58, Ezra Beeman wrote:
By the way, I have never reviewed the list
of banned books. By banned, I assume you mean that it is illegal
to publish, sell, or possess the books, not that some library
or school district has deemed them unsuitable. It is one thing
to say that the government cannot interfere with freedom of speech
and of the press, and another to say that a public library must
purchase every book that is published.
What books are banned in this country, and why are they banned?
Whoa, I am not talking about the Lorax
in Oregon here, I am speaking of books thought too violent (Clockwork
Orange) are too perverse (Catcher in the Rye) for the public
at large.
Clockwork Orange was on the bookshelves at
local bookstores after it was published. I do not believe that
it was banned, although there may have been attempts to ban it
in some locations. If so, I imagine that any such attempt was
overturned in court.
I do recall hearing something about Catcher
in the Rye being banned in the early part of this century, though.
I thought you were saying that free speech is an illusion because
many books are currently banned in the U.S. I see now that you
are talking about history.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 20:42:33 +0100
Steve Premo wrote:
What books are banned in this country,
and why are they banned?
Try some of these sites for starters:
http://www.disinfo.com/cen/cen_bannedbooks.html
[obsolete]
http://www.lib.wmc.edu/lib/staff/suttle/censorship/censors.html
[obsolete]
http://www.aclu.org/issues/freespeech/bbwlist.html
http://www.afronet.com/BANNEDBOOKS/page1.html
http://nsn.nslsilus.org/MHONARC/FICTION_L/August1997/msg00166.html
[obsolete]
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/spok/banned-books.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0313285179/qid=920316557/sr=1-2/002-74586
58-6181402
http://headlines.yahoo.com/granite/kntv/local/19970930.html
[obsolete]
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve
Premo"
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:28:11 -0700
On 1 Mar 99, at 20:42, Tarjei Straume wrote:
Steve Premo wrote:
What books are banned in this country,
and why are they banned?
Try some of these sites for starters:
Thanks for the cites.
All these sites seem to relate either to the
decision of a school district or library not to use a book, or
to historical examples of books that were banned in the U.S.
many years ago, or to books that are banned abroad.
I found no instances of books that are actually
prohibited in the U.S. in the sense that one could be punished
for publishing, selling, or possessing the book.
With the exception of child pornography, I
doubt if you will find such an example.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: censorship in America [was: Watch it PLANS!]
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 00:18:10 +0100
Steve Premo wrote:
Thanks for the cites.
All these sites seem to relate either to the decision of a school
district or library not to use a book, or to historical examples
of books that were banned in the U.S. many years ago, or to books
that are banned abroad.
I found no instances of books that are actually prohibited in
the U.S. in the sense that one could be punished for publishing,
selling, or possessing the book.
With the exception of child pornography, I doubt if you will
find such an example.
Plus national security, which can result in
some very interesting controversies about the people's right
to know government secrets. And then you have the kind of censorship
excercised by the Church of Scientology based upon the abuse
of copyright law.
Then you have the War on Drugs, which means
that if someone asks you how to grow marijuana and you answer
the question, you may be prosecuted for exercising free speech
in America.
A little more than a century ago, there were
mighty battles against censorship in America. Obscenity was the
big thing. Women who fought for liberation were facing obscenity
charges for teaching or publishing sex education and family planning
information. The notable anarchist Benjamin
Tucker, whom Rudolf Steiner praised as "one of the greatest
champions for freedom," fought against Anthony Comstock,
a representative of the New York Society for the Suppression
of Vice as well as a special agent of the United States Post
Office Department. Ezra
Heywood was arrested by Comstock for distributing "Cupid's
Yokes" through the mail, charged and found guilty and served
six months in jail in 1878.
Here is a quote from "Benjamin R. Tucker
& the Champions of Liberty":
"Tucker and Heywood
next were linked together in a struggle to oppose censorship
of Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass." In the fall of
1881, the Boston publishing house of James R. Osgood and Co.
issued an edition of the book. In the spring of 1882, Oliver
Stevens, district attorney of Suffolk County, Boston, at Anthony
Comstock's instigation, advised Osgood and Co. that portions
of the book were obscene. The publishers, before printing a secons
edition, invited Whitman to omit the offending verses. Whe he
refused, they broke their contract and turned over the plates
to the author, who entrusted them to David McKay, a Philadelphia
publisher. Meanwhile, Postmaster of Boston, L.S. Tobey, had declared
the book unmailable.
"Tucker decided to
challenge this affront to liberty. He procured from Philadelphia
a sufficient supply of the book and inserted an advertisement
conspicuously in the daily papers of Boston. He challenged the
authorities of Boston, Comstock, and "all other enemies
of liberty" to arrest him for selling the book. Tucker reported
that Comstock begged the United States district attorney to indict
him but the request was refused. In a notice to the press on
August 19, 1882, Tucker declared, "I have offered to meet
the enemy, but the enemy declines to be met....""
It is a possibility that the U.S. district
attorney declined to let Comstock prosecute because of respect
and admiration for Tucker, I don't know. I'm mentioning this
because of *my own* admiration for Ben Tucker. When I wrote an
article about him, my co-editors teased me about what they called
my worship of the guy. In other words, Steiner is not my *only*
hero. In the cult of anarchosophy, Saint Tucker has a firm place
between Buddha, Mary, and Steiner, in spite of being an atheist
and all. And if I had my say about American public schools, I
would arrange for a daily liberty-prayer to Saint Tucker at noon
every day.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: censorship in America [was: Watch it PLANS!]
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 18:22:02 -0800
Thanks for your efforts! Usually I suggest
an alternative and leave it up to one's initiative to educated
oneself if one is truly interested. (As opposed to humoring the
exercises in academia most of the challenges entail).
They are truly fortunate you take the time
and effort in the face of such intellectual sloth. (both mine
and other's)
e
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Plus national security, which can result
in some very interesting controversies about the people's right
to know government secrets. And then you have the kind of censorship
excercised by the Church of Scientology based upon the abuse
of copyright law.
[editorial snip]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kathy
Subject: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 18:09:46 -0800
My arch nemesis, Ezra Beeman posted:
With respect to my tone, perhaps you should
be sensitive to the fact Kathy continually insults, denigrates
and slanders someone (Betty Staley) and something (Waldorf Education)
I remember very fondly. Try, for a brief instant, to visualize
someone attacking your mentor (of sorts) and your alma mater
with politically driven rancor and insipid deduction. Then you
might understand what my understanding of insulting is.
Try for a moment to envision someone forced
to repeat, over the course of several years, spiritually-driven
incomprehensibilities and politically-inspired inculcation. Also
consider having your livlihood threatened, your professional
status invalidated, your life invaded by anonymous phone calls
and veiled, as well as specific threats. Internalize this visualization
to include somatic ills brought on by the above persecution.
Realize that this actually happened and lasted not a moment,
but more than a year.
Now, expand that momentary vision from one
individual who dared to complain of unconstitutional behavior
in the workplace to a variety of communities duped into spending
millions of taxpayer funds on the same spiritually-driven content
and politically-inspired inculcation. Visualize other teachers
and professionals shunned in like manner as they protested Waldorf
takeover at their public school.
Imagine the individual that originally concocted
the lucrative plan to bring the religiously based curriculum
into the public arena and sell it there for hundreds of thousands
of dollars, all the while leaving out the key information regarding
the spiritual underpinnings of the pedagogy. Add to this another
picture of the same individual acting as mentor to the privately
inculcated Waldorf youth and doing so with kindness and interest.
Why not? These two pictures are not mutually exclusive.
Kathy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 18:29:57 -0800
I do not mean to indict you by association
(but since we're in Rome), but I agree with this sentiment across
the board.
Tolz, Robert wrote:
P.S. Although it must be fun for you to
play lawyer once in awhile, Kathy, I'm not sure I want to play
teacher. :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 05:48:44 EST
In einer eMail vom 01.03.99 22:45:06 MEZ,
schreiben Sie:
Clockwork Orange was on the bookshelves
at local bookstores after it was published. I do not believe
that it was banned, although there may have been attempts to
ban it in some locations. If so, I imagine that any such attempt
was overturned in court.
"A Clockwork Orange" will be performed
at the Freiewaldorfschule Rendsburg on 26th and 27th March 1999
by the students of Class 12. If anyone is interested I can obtain
tickets!
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 14:12:54 -0500
Steve Premo wrote:
Clockwork Orange was on the bookshelves
at local bookstores after it was published. I do not believe
that it was banned, although there may have been attempts to
ban it in some locations. If so, I imagine that any such attempt
was overturned in court.
I do recall hearing something about Catcher in the Rye being
banned in the early part of this century, though. I thought you
were saying that free speech is an illusion because many books
are currently banned in the U.S. I see now that you are talking
about history.
My examples may have been historical (as most
are) but my point (of the discrepancy between patriotic rhetoric
and public policy) is contemporary. How contemporary must you
be to be relevant? Is MLK contemporary enough? Try to criticize
the government, call for revolution, and see what happens to
your freedoms.
Our justice system now allows one to sue entities
for putting ideas in one's head ("I learned it on Jenny
Jones!!"). How can there be freedom of expression when you
are held accountable for other's perception of your expression?
What ever happened to volition, agency and personal responsibility?
My girlfriend is Welsh (i.e. not American),
and she points out nearly every day the totalitarian state I
have grown accustomed to. For example (speaking of the freedom
of speech): The guys who pied our venerable Mayor of SFO (Willie
Brown) each received PRISON sentences of 6 mos. They were found
guilty of (insert legislative hack here). Freedom of Speech?
HA!
e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Sabsay
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS! (Watch it Ezra)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:52:16 -0800
Ezra Beeman wrote >
For example (speaking of the freedom of
speech): The guys who pied our venerable Mayor of SFO (Willie
Brown) each received PRISON sentences of 6 mos. They were found
guilty of (insert legislative hack here). Freedom of Speech?
HA!
Take a little more responsibility for your
own speech, Ezra.
I saw the video tape of this particular incident,
and we are not talking about any kind of speech here. This was
a physical assault which looked like, and I imagine felt like,
an attempted mugging. They surprised and trapped the mayor momentarily,
restricting his ability to back away, and smashed him with several
disk-like objects. I think he was almost knocked down, but in
any event, he was obviously terrified for a few moments before
it was all sorted out. On top of this, he is as you well know,
black; his assailants were all white.
Get down off your high horse, this was much
closer to an assault than free speech. In fact, just get down
off your high horse.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable
resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS! (Watch it Daniel?)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 16:56:08 -0500
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
Take a little more responsibility for your
own speech, Ezra.
I stand behind everything I say. Are you suggesting
I am irresponsible? What a lark, any other ad hominems while
you're at it?
I saw the video tape of this particular
incident, and we are not talking about any kind of speech here.
So you maintain protest is not a form of speech?
I'm skeptical. I fear your vision of free speech (you are allowed
to say whatever you wish, so long as you keep it verbal and within
the privacy of your own home, preferably in the closet with the
lights out). Furthermore, I saw the the video tape as well, it
is probably available on the CNN archives for those interested.
This was a physical assault which looked
like, and I imagine felt like, an attempted mugging.
You later go on to suggest lynching, can we
please stick to a single metaphor?
They surprised and trapped the mayor momentarily,
restricting his ability to back away, and smashed him with several
disk-like objects.
These were pies, PIES! They look much more
disk-like to the cameras (which see the aluminum side) and naive
viewers, than to the Mayor who saw nothing but tofu and banana.
I think he was almost knocked down, but
in any event, he was obviously terrified for a few moments before
it was all sorted out.
Yeah okay, he was so scared and intimidated
(Willie Brown is a political bad ass by the way) he managed to
grab one of the hippies (yeah they're a real threatening bunch)
for the cops.
On top of this, he is as you well know,
black; his assailants were all white.
What the HELL does your last statement mean
to infer? Your arguments are so one sided, as to be cartoonish,
please describe your understanding of the motives involved here.
Currently they seem to border on assault and lynching?
As an aside: We have lost the benefit of the
fool's advice in our society, who is left to counsel the king?
Get down off your high horse, this was
much closer to an assault than free speech. In fact, just get
down off your high horse.
Where do you get off here? Since when you
are the arbiter of high horses, Mr. East Bay Skeptics Society?
Good grief.
e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Watch it PLANS! (Watch it Daniel?)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 06:45:48 +0000
Ezra Beeman wrote:
So you maintain protest is not a form of
speech?
Ezra, I find it remarkably difficult to believe
that you cannot see a distinction between a physical assault
(however mild) and speech. Perhaps a few exercises in Goethean
observation may help.
However, I do find it interesting, as an outsider,
to watch so many defend the myth that the USA is a nation of
free speech and no censorship. As I think I have said before,
a single counter-example falsifies an hypothesis. The censorship
may be more subtle than in Banana-republic-X; it may be disguised
as something else; but allow me to cite two counter examples:
Joe Hill, Halton Arp.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve
Premo"
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS! (Watch it Daniel?)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:09:51 -0700
On 2 Mar 99, at 6:45, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
However, I do find it interesting, as an
outsider, to watch so many defend the myth that the USA is a
nation of free speech and no censorship.
Actually, I was defending the notion that
this country *stands* for free speech, not that the ideal is
always realized. Yet, things have gotten better, and the courts
have been pretty good (not perfect) about ensuring that people
are not criminally prosecuted for the content of their speech.
Censorship continues in various ways. Someone
who speaks in opposition to the government may be safe from arrest,
generally, but I suspect that if the person starts to become
effective, he will be in danger of being framed on some criminal
charge, e.g., drug possession. He will not, though, be prosecuted
directly for speaking against the government, or for otherwise
expressing his opinions.
This is not true of many other countries that
are considered to be "free." In much of Europe, I understand,
one can be prosecuted for preaching white supremacy.
But even in the U.S., there are plenty of
restrictions on speech. Commercial speech in particular is regulated.
For example, cigarette companies cannot advertise on television.
There are (or have been) limitations on political
speech with respect to opinions that can be expressed on television.
Specifically, if a station wants to run a story endorsing a candidate,
that station was required to give equal time to the opposing
candidate. This is a restriction on the station manager's right
to express opinions on the candidate he supports. But I think
this provision may have been dropped.
Obscenity is also not protected, although
it's pretty much got to be hard core pornography to be actionable,
and even that is freely available.
Libel and slander, of course, are not so much
restrictions on free speech as they are a means to hold people
accountable for the consequences of spreading falsehoods. Even
there, the person injured must show not only that the statements
were false, but if that person is a public figure, he must show
that the lie was intentional, or without any cause to believe
it to be true.
Finally, the laws relating to free speech
cannot fully prevent the government from attempting to illegally
suppress one's right of free expression. The courts cannot, and
should not, control the day-to-day functioning of the other branches
of government. But if the government infringes on one's rights,
one does have a legal remedy. It may be difficult and expensive
to pursue, though.
Of course, first amendment law is much more
complex than this summary, but my point is this. Although this
country has not fully realized its ideals with respect to free
speech, it is one of the principles for which the country stands.
We must all be vigilant in insisting that the government abide
by its principles.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
[This
exchange continues in another thread]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS! (Watch it Daniel?)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:42:53 +0000
Steve Premo wrote:
On 2 Mar 99, at 6:45, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
However, I do find it interesting, as an
outsider, to watch so many defend the myth that the USA is a
nation of free speech and no censorship.
Actually, I was defending the notion that
this country *stands* for free speech, not that the ideal is
always realized.
[...]
I understood that, Steve, but I'm one of these
boring old farts who is more interested in the actuality than
the theory (at least, when it suits me to do so <G>).
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS! (Watch it Daniel?)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:12:04 +1300
Steve Premo writes:
On 2 Mar 99, at 6:45, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
However, I do find it interesting, as an
outsider, to watch so many defend the myth that the USA is a
nation of free speech and no censorship.
[PREMO]
Actually, I was defending the notion that
this country *stands* for free speech, not that the ideal is
always realized. Yet, things have gotten better, and the courts
have been pretty good (not perfect) about ensuring that people
are not criminally prosecuted for the content of their speech.
Censorship continues in various ways.
[snip]
Of course, first amendment law is much
more complex than this summary, but my point is this. Although
this country has not fully realized its ideals with respect to
free speech, it is one of the principles for which the country
stands. We must all be vigilant in insisting that the government
abide by its principles.
Dissent in the United States is tolerated
much more than in many other so-called democratic countries.
But establishments -- governments, big businesses and their other
apparatus, such as the mainstream media owned by big corporations
-- use other techniques to fool the populace into agreeing to
be governed in a particular way by all of these institutions.
Yet a scholar and political activist such as Noam Chomsky can
publish anti-establishment books to his heart's content; it is
only when antiestablishmentarianism or dissent becomes unlawful,
as in the case of the Unabomber, that it is legally suppressed.
Steve is right about the abuses of power that
occur in the U.S. So are all the other America-bashers on this
or any other forum.
But there is no other country in the world
that has so consistently upheld its founding principles in individual
freedoms through the rule and remedy of law.
(And that is said by a Yank who left America
17 years ago in some disillusion, and has watched it from abroad
through the eyes of the rest of the world.)
Let's stop the America-bashing here, and get
on with discussing the problems we see with Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical education. Censorship is not an issue in regard
to SWA; the First Amendment is. And a narrow section of the First,
at that.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS! (Watch it Daniel?)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 18:03:20 -0600
Hear, hear!!
And thanx for the "put up or shut up"
in the previous post.
Going well, I hope?
Biz has picked up here: it's cold & wet.
R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS! (Watch it Daniel?)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:14:55 +0100
Thank you Steve, for sharing your perspective
on free speech and censorship in America. The first amendment
to the U.S. constitution is one of the most valuable legal documents
in existence, and it has been a beacon of inspiration for other
nations too. I also appreciate the kind of work A.C.L.U. is doing.
Norwegians have basically the same rights
that Americans have, with some of the same restrictions. Our
anarchist magazine Gateavisa has always tried to stretch the
limits of free speech. Lawsuits have often been promised, but
rarely carried through, perhaps because the publicity they give
us makes us very happy.
You wrote:
Censorship continues in various ways. Someone
who speaks in opposition to the government may be safe from arrest,
generally, but I suspect that if the person starts to become
effective, he will be in danger of being framed on some criminal
charge, e.g., drug possession. He will not, though, be prosecuted
directly for speaking against the government, or for otherwise
expressing his opinions.
That is true over here too. Some years ago,
there was a big case about police violence in Bergen. What caught
the attention of Amnesty International was not just the police
violence itself, but the tactics used in the cover-up. The cops
planted drugs on eyewitnesses, produced false charges, and threatened
and intimidated them in every possible way. The matter was never
cleared up properly, and the corrupt cops are still on the beat.
Our "internal affairs" division is a laugh, because
cops are exonerated 90 per cent of the time. Oh, I shouldn't
get started on this.
This is not true of many other countries that are considered
to be "free." In much of Europe, I understand, one
can be prosecuted for preaching white supremacy.
That is true, especially in Germany, where
racist and fascist organizations are forbidden. But Norway also
has a law against racist speech. The leader for the "White
Alliance" party is serving a sentence right now (to the
best of my knowledge), and this party and their neo-Nazi cohorts
are backing the ostensibly moderate populist "Progress Party."
I find it frightening that decent people vote for them because
of popular stands on certain issues, ignoring their brownshirt
ties.
As a champion for free speech, I oppose censorship
of all kinds. The reason for the laws against racist speech in
Europe is that very many non-whites are first or second generation
immigrants, and they are very vulnerable minorities. When right
wing agitators say that all Asians and Africans living in Europe
should be sterilized, that all Africans coming to Europe carry
the AIDS virus, plus very ugly and insulting rhetoric, they increase
the social problems that these people already have. When certain
minority groups are libelled and slandered in this way, it is
very much like libel and slander against single individuals.
There are (or have been) limitations on
political speech with respect to opinions that can be expressed
on television. Specifically, if a station wants to run a story
endorsing a candidate, that station was required to give equal
time to the opposing candidate. This is a restriction on the
station manager's right to express opinions on the candidate
he supports. But I think this provision may have been dropped.
There is a public debate here at the moment
about whether or not to allow political and religious ads on
television.
Obscenity is also not protected, although it's pretty much
got to be hard core pornography to be actionable, and even that
is freely available.
The fact that we haven't had an obscenity
trial in almost 35 jears (against Jens
Bjørneboe, the notorious anarchosopist!), is a great
loss to those of us who like to have a cheap and easy weapon
to provoke with. Last time Gateavisa was successfully sued was
in 1982. The plaintiff was Kåre Kristiansen, a parliament
member for the Christian Party. They pasted his face on a porn
picture (and believe me, it was hilarious). The defense argued
that no readers could possibly believe that this picture was
authentic - it was an artistic expression of political protest.
(Kristiansen wanted to legislate everybody's bedroom activities.)
Nevertheless, Gateavisa lost and was ordered
to pay the legal costs and remove the offending double page (Kristiansen
was the beautiful centerfold!), after it was clear that the magazine
could not survive a total ban on the sale of the issue. (The
offending pages were removed from the bookstore copies, but it
was sold intact, and illegally, on the street.)
This case took place when I was in America,
but when I read the court records a few years ago, I couldn't
help but notice that the plaintiff's lawyer was Cato
Schiøtz. I hit the ceiling in offended rage, because
Schiøtz was not only a prominent Supreme Court lawyer,
but a card-carrying member of the Anthroposophical Society who
had written an excellent article about public criticism of anthroposophy
in Norwegian media. I had enjoyed that article very much, but
now I was morally offended! He had represented a wealthy and
powerful jerk against a poor and struggling freedom-magazine!
So I immediately wrote him a sarcastic letter, putting all the
sarcasm between the lines, in the subtext. But when he called
me on the phone and praised me for my own articles and for my
"very nice" letter, I recognized how innocent he was,
and that taking Kristiansen's case did not mean that he necessarily
agreed with him.
Subsequently, Schiøtz and I became
good friends, and we shared enthusiasm for Bob Dylan and his
songs. (He has an imressive collection.) And incidentally, it
was Cato Schiøtz who introduced me to the PLANS website,
sending me the print-outs.
I am telling this story in order to show that
anthroposophists don't think alike when it comes to social and
legal issues. And on a personal note, I may add that I have the
same communication problems with my son's mother, who is an anthroposophist
with the entire Steiner-collection in German, that very many
other men are having with their ex'es. She has no understanding
for my anarchosophy, and she's hyper-critical of me. That's my
side of the story. Her side of the story is that I'm a damn slob.
Perhaps we should both seek therapy with dr. Fine or try some
deprogramming. I doubt that it will do us much good.
The only thing that anthroposophists have
in common is a high regard for Rudolf Steiner and the opinion
that spiritual science is a legitimate science according to our
definition of the word. But even though we share this element
of cultural heresy, there are many bourgeois anthroposophists
who make a sharp contrast to my outlaw anarchist profile. I ought
to repeat for the record, though, that Norwegian anthroposophists
as a group have always preferred the political left when they
go to the polls. You'll have to look elsewhere for fascists.
Of course, first amendment law is much
more complex than this summary, but my point is this. Although
this country has not fully realized its ideals with respect to
free speech, it is one of the principles for which the country
stands. We must all be vigilant in insisting that the government
abide by its principles.
I agree. Liberties and rights must never be
taken for granted. They must be fought for constantly, and it
is a continuous, tough battle.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: Watch it, PLANS! (continued)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:39:59 -0500
Here are two more days of news stories of
the federal trial in White Plains, NY.....
-----------------------------------------
Experts offer differing views on Bedford
programs
By LANNING TALIAFERRO
COPYRIGHT 1999 The Journal News. All rights reserved.
Publication date: 3/2/1999
WHITE PLAINS -- To one psychologist, programs
in Bedford schools to build students' self-esteem are dangerous
and illegal group therapy. To another, they are worthwhile activities
to help children cope.
The contrasting views came as both sides in
a federal trial over students' religious and privacy rights brought
in expert witnesses to bolster their case.
Retired California psychologist William Coulson
testified on behalf of three Roman Catholic families who accuse
district schools of violating their children's rights with New
Age programs of pop psychology, non-Christian spirituality and
the occult.
"The net effect of these programs is
destructive," he said. "It's psychotherapy applied
to children who don't have enough life experiences to find a
fund of answers to draw from within themselves."
The district's meditation and bonding exercises,
anti-drug and suicide-prevention programs, peer-mediation and
self-esteem-building activities are illegal, unauthorized psychological
services, Coulson testified.
Coulson's testimony evoked images of 1960s
encounter groups, search for self-enlightment and sensitivity
training, a view challenged by psychologist Marvin Goldfried,
a defense witness who invoked the business world of brainstorming
and problem-solving in his testimony.
Goldfried said school staffers were operating
from a "psycho-educational" philosophy that believes
education should foster students' academic and emotional intelligence.
"Personal or social intelligence involves
knowing how to deal with other people, knowing how to communicate
with other people ... knowing how to deal with difficult life
situations," Goldfried testified.
He said the use of psychotherapeutic techniques
was not limited to therapy, citing businessmen trained in problem-solving,
and relaxation exercises for athletes, actors and others who
want to improve performance.
The Altmans, DiNozzis and DiBaris argue that
quizzes for high-schoolers on their levels of stress, relaxation
exercises in darkened classrooms for elementary-schoolers and
rope-climbing courses meant to instill confidence, promote teamwork
and help middle-schoolers assess their own feelings and behavior
are forms of group psychology.
They have asked U.S. District Judge Charles
Brieant to stop those practices and others they find objectionable.
Among those practices are activities like the DARE anti-drug
program and the Yale Decision-Making Program, which ask students
to discuss their feelings about risky, offensive or illegal behavior.
The trial resumes today.
-------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: Re: Watch it, PLANS! (continued)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:39:20 -0500
There was no news story this morning to report,
but a columnist had an article observing the clash between the
First Amendment and the First Commandment. The column is not
available on the newspaper's web site, and I don't have the time
to type it in for y'all, but I thought the closing paragraph
was interesting and could be food for thought for my fellow list-mates.
One of the witnesses for the plaintiff, I
think he may have been a Jesuit priest, had been testifying about
an exercise used in the school where children were asked to lie
down on an old gravesite, ostensibly to get a sense of the height
that people attained way-back-when. The witness complained that
the exercise was just plain foolish. The judge, perhaps revealing
his leanings in the case, commented something on the order of:
The Constitution does not prohibit foolishness.
I believe the case is supposed to conclude
today. I contacted the school's attorney just to get a little
background. He fully expects to win the trial, but it sounds
like he would be surprised if the plaintiffs fail to appeal a
verdict against them.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: Watch it, PLANS! (Trial Finishes)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:04:40 -0500
The final day of trial is over. The judge's
decision is not expected for several weeks. Here's the article
from the local newspaper:
----------------------
Collector: Rocks not mystical
By LANNING TALIAFERRO
COPYRIGHT 1999 The Journal News. All rights reserved.
Publication date: 3/5/1999
WHITE PLAINS -- Testimony in the Bedford school
satanism lawsuit ended yesterday with a self-described "rock
hound" telling that court that he never urged schoolchildren
to use crystals for mystical purposes, as the plaintiffs claim.
"I told them I thought the belief that
rocks had powers was ludicrous," said Harvey Brickman, 72,
a retired financial analyst and rock collector who makes presentations
on rocks and minerals at Bedford schools.
Brickman testified for the defense on the
final day of a nonjury trial in which three Roman Catholic families
say the Bedford school district is teaching satanism, the occult
and New Age religion.
U.S. District Judge Charles Brieant told both
sides to file final arguments as post-trial briefs within three
weeks, so the issues are "fresh in my mind." He did
not say when he would rule.
Some of the plaintiffs' children testified
that Brickman, in a visit to a Pound Ridge Elementary School
fourth-grade class, told them that crystals held powers, and
that a person could benefit by holding a crystal to his forehead
or chest.
"If the kids said that, they were coached
or coerced or something," Brickman said after testifying.
"I didn't say it because I don't believe it. A crystal is
just a fancy type of rock."
Brickman also denied he wore a pendant with
a crystal during his visit, as the plaintiffs alleged.
"I don't wear necklaces, I wear bolo
ties," he said, sporting a handmade cowboy tie studded with
pyrite.
Following Brickman to the stand were four
students who disputed the plaintiffs' versions of lessons on
Aztec and Hindu gods, annual Earth Day ceremonies and mental
health and peer-counseling programs. One of them, Fox Lane sophomore
Kerry Brown, 15, testified that a sixth-grade program portrayed
by the plaintiffs as illegal group therapy helped students adjust
to middle school.
Both sides left court feeling confident they
would prevail.
Bedford Superintendent Bruce Dennis said Brickman's
testimony exemplified how the DiBari, DiNozzi and Altman families
had distorted the school district's programs.
"Here's an elderly man with a genuine
interest in rocks mischaracterized as promoting the power of
crystals," he said.
The families' attorney, James Bendell, said
his side made a compelling case that students were inundated
with religion in the classroom.
"It's pretty clear that the children
were asked to make an image of a god worshiped by 800 million
people," he said, referring to the study of a Hindu god
called Ganesha. "The courts have been militant in making
sure that there are no signs of Christianity in the classroom.
This would make it an even playing field."
Carole Shields, president of People for the
American Way, issued a statement saying the plaintiffs had held
Bedford's schools hostage. If they win, she said, there would
be "similar disruptions in school districts across the United
States as right-wing ideologues seek to gain a veto over what
other parents' children read and learn."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"